This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

I'm sure Osama bin Laden and Muhmar Ghaddafi both agree from their graves. Obama just doesn't have what it takes to order military strikes into foreign countries.

Generally I'm an "isolationist" but our embassy was attacked and they were basically told to stand down until they were murdered.

I would have lit those ****s on fire. **** orders. Then I would have shot the **** out of them then threw grenades at them... Then I would have burned the place to the ground after I evacuated the building.

Too bad those we (or better yet idiot Obama) select advisers or diplomats aren't the best "McGivers" - if they were they would have survived.

I would have lit them all on fire and watched them run.... Use that time to destroy the embassy and make an escape..

Meanwhile, Mullen was quick to insist American forces could not have rushed to the rescue in time to save the four Americans killed during the Benghazi attack.

"The military did everything they possibly could that night. They just couldn't get there in time," Mullen insisted. "It's 2 o'clock in the morning. There are no planes on alert. It's two to two-and-a-half hours to fly there. Tanker support is four hours away."

It is unsurprising how badly conservatives want to milk Benghazi for all it's worth.

Quite obviously, security at the Benghazi compound was insufficient. The fact that the attack was successful is indicative of that. And yes, that's on State and, to an extent, the White House.

However, while this shouldn't be political, it is. One repeated cudgel used by the GOP has been that the White House issued a "stand down" order to forces that might have been able to assist, which leads to the conclusion that Obama "let them die." As we now see, this is not correct.

While clearly the priority should be to prevent future attacks, knowing how they screwed up and knowing how they didn't are both vital.

As a prior military SOF, getting an order to not deploy from Tripoli to Benghazi has the same meaning and effect as stand down.

I wish that these types of events were less political. Both sides have gone overboard with the politics; the Democrats in refusing to identify the failures and where they originated, and the Republicans by emphasizing the President and Secretary of State rather than letting the evidence lead where it will.

This has the same smell, to me, as when Johnson tried to run the Vietnam war instead of letting the Generals do it, as well as an event I was personally involved in - Somalia, where Clinton recalled a crew served weapons and armored personnel carriers because he didn't want the illusion of an occupying force, even after we literally begged to have them returned resulting in many US deaths in Mogadishu.

These problems arise when the civilians either think they know better than the Generals, or when the civilians let political gain override US military lives.

Before anyone says anything, there's no slant in me naming Johnson and Clinton because every President was guilty if this to one extent or another; even Reagan in another event I was part of - Grenada.

We do need know if Hillary had a hand in the decisions, IF she decides to run for President. Simply, because we need to know if she would be willing to make the same choices of politics over lives. There may not be a way to know if others from either party may make the same choices (although I tend to think they may since it isn't just a Democrat failing), but as to Hillary, we may actually the evidence to show a pattern - and that - we need to know.

The headline is no surprise. The House Armed Services Committee issued a report today ...

Well, except in one way.

There was no stand down order. Repeat: There was no stand down order. Maybe that ludicrous talking point can finally be put to rest.

You don't know how the military works Kobi.

For a commissioned officer to be able to say or tell the truth in front of Congress he would have to resign his commission like Major General Merritt A. Edson, USMC did. That's right the same Edson as "Red Mike" of the Marine Raiders during WW ll. Most west coast Marines who went through MCRDSD probably qualified on Edson Range.

>"Following the war Edson headed the effort to preserve the Marine Corps in the face of President Truman's (D) drive to "unify" the services. He waged a fierce campaign in the halls of Congress, in the media, and in public appearances across the nation. Finally, he resigned his commission in order to testify publicly before committees of both houses of Congress. His efforts played a key role in preserving the Marine Corps."<http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o...30-00/sec1.htm

Like a few months ago when Obama tried to feminize the Marines by ordering all Marines to start wearing girly covers (hats) Every swinging dick in the Corps who was in the loop knows it came from the White House but Marine Corps HQ's was told to tell the public that Obama wasn't involved.

Any officer who spoke off the record regarding Benghazi was purged. So you will not be hearing any officers who are still wearing the uniform talking off the record knowing they will be walking the plank if they do. That's become SOP in the the Obama PC military, just shut up and don't say #### while looking at each other who's next on Obama's hit list ?